From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E8069E66 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 03A088E15 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DCEA68E06 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A637F436DF for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:02:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:00:23 +0100 From: Oguz Bektas To: Stoiko Ivanov Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <20210215100023.GA10877@gaia.proxmox.com> Mail-Followup-To: Oguz Bektas , Stoiko Ivanov , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210210160142.1326921-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210210160142.1326921-3-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20210210172059.6b59bc06@rosa.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210210172059.6b59bc06@rosa.proxmox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.495 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC 2/2 manager] proxy: allow setting BIND_IP for pveproxy X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:02:25 -0000 hi, thanks for responding! On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > Thanks for looking into this! > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:01:42 +0100 > Oguz Bektas wrote: > > > default to 0.0.0.0 to preserve backwards behavior > > > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > > --- > > PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > > index 571a6bf5..ce1d42a6 100755 > > --- a/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > > +++ b/PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm > > @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ sub init { > > die "unable to open lock file '${accept_lock_fn}' - $!\n"; > > > > my $family = PVE::Tools::get_host_address_family($self->{nodename}); > > - my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, undef, $family); > > + my $bind_ip = $proxyconf->{BIND_IP} // '0.0.0.0'; # default > any reason why the '0.0.0.0' is necessary? (the socket got created with > undef before after all) - Given that I find the inner workings of perl > IO::Socket::IP (which gets passed the arguments in create_reusable_socket > eventually) a bit surprising in certain situations I think leaving it as > it was might have its merit after looking at it more it looks like `undef` might be better indeed. > > did you test it in a few different scenarios? - e.g.: > * ipv6 only host > * dual-stacked host > * host with multiple interfaces and IPs no, i've only tested ipv4 -- i'll take a look at these too > > > + my $socket = $self->create_reusable_socket(8006, $bind_ip, $family); > > > > my $dirs = {}; > > >